The Vanishing Man eBook

“The testator in this case was a shipmaster,
and his disappearance was accompanied by the disappearance
of the ship and the entire ship’s company in
the course of a voyage from London to Marseilles.
The loss of the ship and her crew was the only reasonable
explanation of the disappearance, and, short of actual
demonstration, the facts offered convincing evidence
of the death of all persons on board. I mention
this case as an illustration. You are not dealing
with speculative probabilities. You are contemplating
a very momentous proceeding, and you must be very
sure of your ground. Consider what it is that
you are asked to do.

“The petitioner asks permission to presume the
death of the testator in order that the testator’s
property may be distributed among the beneficiaries
under the will. The granting of such permission
involves us in the gravest responsibility. An
ill-considered decision might be productive of a serious
injustice to the testator, an injustice that could
never be remedied. Hence it is incumbent upon
you to weigh the evidence with the greatest care,
to come to no decision without the profoundest consideration
of all the facts.

“The evidence that you have heard divides itself
into two parts—­that relating to the circumstances
of the testator’s disappearance, and that relating
to certain human remains. In connection with the
latter I can only express my surprise and regret that
the application was not postponed until the completion
of the coroner’s inquest, and leave you to consider
the evidence. You will bear in mind that Doctor
Summers has stated explicitly that the remains cannot
be identified as those of any particular individual,
but that the testator and the unknown deceased had
so many points of resemblance that they might possibly
be one and the same person.

“With reference to the circumstances of the
disappearance, you have heard the evidence of Mr.
Jellicoe to the effect that the testator has on no
previous occasion gone abroad without informing him
as to his proposed destination. But in considering
what weight you are to give to this statement you
will bear in mind that when the testator set out for
Paris after his interview with Doctor Norbury he left
Mr. Jellicoe without any information as to his specific
destination, his address in Paris, or the precise
date when he should return, and that Mr. Jellicoe
was unable to tell us where the testator went or what
was his business. Mr. Jellicoe was, in fact,
for a time without any means of tracing the testator
or ascertaining his whereabouts.

“The evidence of the housemaid, Dobbs, and of
Mr. Hurst is rather confusing. It appears that
the testator came to the house, was shown into a certain
room, and when looked for later was not to be found.
A search of the premises showed that he was not in
the house, whence it seems to follow that he must
have left it; but since no one was informed of his
intention to leave, and he had expressed the intention